ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2022
The statistical foundation of the reference population for semen analysis included in the sixth edition of the WHO manual: a critical reappraisal of the evidence.
Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Simultaneous semen and urine biomonitoring of neonicotinoids and associations with semen quality in men.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Deciphering the Therapeutic Mechanisms of Wuzi Yanzong Pill for Asthenozoospermia: A Synergistic Approach Combining Bioinformatics and Molecular Dynamics.Cell biochemistry and biophysics · 2025Article
- Article
- Lifestyle and hormonal factors affecting semen quality and sperm DNA integrity: A cross-sectional study.Oncoscience · 2025Article
- Is testicular microlithiasis associated with decreased semen parameters? a systematic review.Basic and clinical andrology · 2024Review
- Male infertility.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the most recent version of the 'WHO Laboratory Manual For The Examination And Processing Of Human Semen', the updated target population used to infer reference values included 3589 fertile subjects, representative of 12 countries and 5 continents, and 10 studies. We have critically evaluated the newly proposed distribution of semen examination results using an approach borrowed from clinical chemistry laboratories and based on the recommendations of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry for estimation of reference intervals. Surprisingly, most prerequisites to produce common reference intervals through multicentric data were not met. Moreover, when we assessed with the bootstrap method the descriptive reference values obtained from raw data of the 10 individual studies for sperm concentration, sperm number, motility and normal forms, we found that none of the populations was completely correctly described by the reference centiles. We concluded that aggregated data used to build the reference distribution cannot be considered to originate from the same population, and this can result from real differences among individuals or different methodological approaches used in the various studies. Transferability conditions across studies did not seem to have been met. Our findings strengthen the relevance of concerns regarding the use of reference populations in the World Health Organization manual to discriminate between fertile and infertile men.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.